Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services (Hansard, 10 March 1960)

§ Mr. Willis
Can the hon. Gentleman give the Committee any information about the Admiralty company of S. G. Brown, Limited? Could he tell us whether it has been disposed of, or is it still in the possession of the Admiralty?
Another point I want to ask about is the reason for the increase in expenditure on travelling, subsistence and passage expenses of naval and civil personnel. I noted that the increase is mainly in respect of naval personnel. In view of the fact that naval personnel has decreased by something like 3,000 or 4,000 this year, should not the amount for these expenses have been smaller?

§ Miss Vickers
We have been talking about sums of millions, but then we come to the welfare services and under Subheads H, HH and I, we are to decrease the amount of money to be 731 given to voluntary institutions, charitable or religious institutions and also ministers of religion. In view of the amount of money we are spending in other directions, it seems that we are being very parsimonious towards these people who do excellent work. I should like to know for what reason the payments to these charities and people are to be cut.
I should also like an explanation about the sum of £100,000 under Subhead L, which shows an increase. I do not know exactly what is involved.
When we were discussing the main Estimates, I mentioned the question of recruiting and publicity services. I hope we shall spend this extra sum. It is essential to have a modern publicity system. Last Monday in the debate I stressed that it would make a considerable difference in competing with industry for the right kind of personnel if we could have attractive publicity, showing the future policy of the Navy and encouraging a better type of apprentice to come into the dockyards.
Finally, I wish to mention the question of canteens. I see that on this item there was a decrease of £3,500. I think it essential that personnel should have good places in which to eat, but at present many of these places are in bad repair.

§ Mr. G. R. Howard
I presume that the item, Lighthouses etc., under Subhead M, refers to lighthouses and buoys in the approaches to naval ports and does not include lighthouses in other areas.

§ Commander Kerans
I am glad to see that the item under Subhead U, "Courses for Merchant Navy Personnel," is continued. I should like an assurance that it will continue in future and that these courses are fully attended by Merchant Navy officers.

§ Mr. Thomas Steele (Dunbartonshire, West)
I hope that the Civil Lord will say something about the recruiting and publicity services and tell us if he has any information as to the effect of publicity. He may not be able to give an answer tonight; I merely raise the point now because I think it important. I assume that most of this publicity will 732 be done through the newspapers. If there are shortages in certain sections, it would be a good idea to spend some of this money on publicity in certain districts and even to particularise in country districts, not leaving it all to the large towns. It may be that if the publicity were in many local newspapers as well as in the national Press, that would be helpful.

§ Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing
I shall deal with as many as I can of the various points which have been raised.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about S. G. Brown, Limited. The present state of play is that we have received a number of offers from various firms. The tender date has closed, but it would not be right for me to give either the numbers of firms or, of course, the names of firms competing one against another in connection with this organisation. The point is that there will be no grant for this item this year. We had put in £250,000 of the taxpayers' money for last year's Vote. There will be no such grant this year, because we hope this burden will be taken off our shoulders.

§ Mr. Steele
It is not a burden.

§ Mr. Willis
The hon. Member must not misrepresent the position like that. S. G. Brown, Limited, is a very profitable company and the money put into it for the Admiralty was in the interests of the Admiralty, to get certain work done. The Admiralty will still have to pay for that type of work, even when it has not got S. G. Brown, Limited. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us when the transfer is likely to be completed?

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
I would not dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member. This would be a bad moment to do so because, obviously, we want the best price, but under Vote 11, Subhead Z, there are appropriations in aid and there is a receipt shown. We hope this transaction will be accomplished during the coming financial year and I shall write to the hon. Member when it is completed.
Secondly, I was asked why travelling costs were up. We have taken a sample of vouchers used by ratings. We find that the costs of railway travel, before 733 events which were forecast in an announcement today, have risen by 15 per cent. Therefore, we increased the Vote accordingly, forecasting that that would be so in the coming year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) asked me a number of questions. Her first question was about contributions to religious, charitable and other institutions under Subhead H. The provision was increased in 1959–60 to allow for a larger contribution to the Officers' Association Employment Bureau. We were coming to a period when large numbers of officers were going out under the rundown schemes, and we thought it right to make a larger contribution to that organisation. We have now gone back and reduced the contribution, because the problem is nothing like so great as it was a year ago.
The second point the hon. Lady asked me was under Subhead HH. The reduction there is due entirely to the lower provision for the naval contribution towards the Forces Broadcasting Organisation. We had previously allowed £15,000 for this. This was found to be an over-estimate. This year we are allowing £5,000, and so it appears as a reduction. It does not mean that we are reducing the services, except in so far as we have a smaller number of establishments with a slightly smaller fleet.
The hon. Lady then asked me about the allowances to ministers of religion. The answer is that we continue to pay ministers of religion where we have not an appointed one but have asked a neighbouring minister to help us out. It is true that there is a reduction, because we have a smaller number of establishments. This reflects the fact that we have a smaller number of shore establishments and, therefore, a lesser need for ministers of religion. We pay a chaplain and local ministers on a per capita basis according to the flock to which they have to minister.
Recruiting publicity was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. The amount asked for under subhead R is broken up into three forms. First, there are classified advertisements. Secondly, there are the equipment, films, projectors, pictures, slides and the school liaison 734 organisation, which is extremely important and covers the country districts as well. Thirdly, there are the visits to ships and training establishments by schoolmasters, youth employment officers, career masters and boys themselves.
It can be stated that a very fair proportion of the amount of money is used for newspaper advertising, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West. In addition to the amount provided under Subhead R for recruiting publicity, it will be seen from page 6 of the Navy Estimates, under the Central Office of Information, that we have a further sum, which this year amounts to £179,200. Therefore, the sum we see in Subhead R is not the complete sum being spent on our Press advertising and recruiting publicity.
We have undertaken very wide publicity for the recruitment of boys for Dartmouth and to the Royal Navy through our school liaison officers. I was asked whether there were any signs of success. I should have thought that the best signs of success—this will please the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—was in the artificer field. We made a very considerable effort this time last year, and the artificer entry has shown a most healthy reaction, so much so that we have overcome the problem which seemed to be facing us last year.
If one applies one's publicity in a certain direction, one can solve the problem. I note the point made by the hon. Gentleman that it may well be a good idea to apply some of our publicity to country districts. If an analysis is made of where the recruits to the Navy come from, one is surprised to find that they do not come, as one might have supposed, from seaside towns or ports. They come from places like Birmingham, which are miles from the sea and have a degree of prosperity which is probably second to none in this country. That is where we draw very large numbers of our recruits.

§ Mr. Steele
I hope that the Civil Lord did not misunderstand me when I mentioned the country. I had in mind the specialised type, such as those directed particularly to artificers and such classes. Perhaps the Works Study Group can look at this problem to find what is exactly the best method of arriving at a proper solution.

§ Mr. Orr-Ewing
I will take note of that suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) was right in his assumption that this is not the ordinary lighthouse system under Trinity House arrangements. Where we ask it to undertake the marking of wrecks or some such action, we have to repay it for its services.
I am not able to answer off the cuff the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans). Perhaps I can write him on that detail.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) for not answering one point among the ten questions I was asked on the previous Vote. Perhaps I can write to him. I should be out of order if I answered it now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked me about canteens. The number of canteens has been reduced, again owing to the number of shore establishments having been reduced during the current year. We have no reason to suppose that the existing canteens are not sufficient for our needs. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important service, and we should carry on with the high standards set in the past.